civitai-mcp-ultimate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it's 'faster' than the sibling tool and suitable for 'download/compatibility checks', which helps the agent understand performance characteristics and typical use cases. Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and reliability (idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, key features, performance comparison, and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence adds critical value, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and reliability), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It effectively explains the tool's role and differentiation. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the output structure or error cases, though the output schema mitigates this need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not provide any information about the 'version_id' parameter beyond what the input schema specifies (type: integer, required). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'version_id' represents or how to obtain it, leaving a gap in parameter understanding. However, the baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter's structure minimally.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Quick check for a model version') and resources ('availability, size, hashes, generation support'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'get_model_version' by noting it's 'Faster than get_model_version'. This provides clear differentiation and a comprehensive scope of what information is retrieved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for download/compatibility checks') and when not to use it by comparing it to an alternative ('Faster than get_model_version'), providing clear guidance on its intended context versus other options. This directly addresses the need for distinguishing between similar tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.